Ex Parte Sigler et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 19, 201713309825 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/309,825 12/02/2011 David R. Sigler P016074-RD-SDJ 5680 60770 7590 10/23/2017 General Motors Corporation c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C. P.O. BOX 4390 TROY, MI 48099-4390 EXAMINER MAYE, AYUB A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3742 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/23/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): stevens@reising.com U S PTOmail @ reising. com USPTOmail@gmx.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID R. SIGLER and MICHAEL J. KARAGOULIS Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 Technology Center 3700 Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE David R. Sigler and Michael J. Karagoulis (“Appellants”) appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ invention relates to an “improvement in the formation of resistance spot welds in stack aluminum-base alloy workpieces.” Spec. 11. In particular, Appellants’ invention purports to improve resistance spot welding in aluminum-based alloys by varying the current flows and times in three separate stages. Id. These three stages of varying current flow and time are described as: (1) the Conditioning Stage {id. Tflf 11, 41), (2) the Shaping Stage {id. H 13, 43), and (3) the Sizing Stage {id. H 15, 47). Appellants allege to have discovered that “the three-stage weld schedule of this invention more reliably produces good welds, and this result is attained over the formation of many welds[, and that] less power is consumed.” Id. 1 16. Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims, and claim 1 is reproduced below with emphases added to particular limitations at issue in this appeal. 1. A method of forming resistance spot welds on aluminum-based alloy workpieces, the method comprising: forming a stack of two or more sheets of aluminum-based alloy workpieces, the stacked workpieces having faying surfaces at a resistance weld site and opposing outer surfaces at the weld site; pressing weld faces of opposing resistance weld electrodes against the outer surfaces of the workpieces at the weld site; and while pressing the weld faces against the workpieces, passing a first stage weld current between the electrodes and through the workpieces at the weld site lasting for a first period of milliseconds, the current being increased to a first stage current value that reduces the electrical resistance between the weld faces to a stable resistance value and heats the workpieces for engagement with the weld faces without melting of the workpieces at their faying surfaces, and then, momentarily 2 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 reducing current flow to zero with the electrodes still pressed against the surfaces of the workpieces; passing a second stage weld current between the electrodes and through the workpieces at the weld site lasting for a second period of milliseconds, the peak current being increased to a second stage current value, larger than the first stage current value, for initiating molten weld nugget formation at the faying surfaces of the weld site, and, reducing current flow with the electrodes still pressed against the surfaces of the workpieces; passing a third stage weld current between the electrodes and through the workpieces at the weld site lasting for a third period of milliseconds, the current being at a third stage rms current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value, for completing molten weld nugget formation at the faying surfaces of the weld site, the third stage being longer than the second stage, and, again, stopping current flow for cooling of the weld site and solidification of the weld nugget; and then removing the weld faces of the opposing weld electrodes from contact with the outer surfaces of the workpieces. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). THE REJECTIONS I. Claims 1—3, 7, 11, 15—17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jochi (US 6,320,774 B2, issued Nov. 20, 2001) and Sigler (US 2009/0127232 Al, published May 21, 2009). Final Act. 3. II. Claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka (US 8,502,105 B2, issued Aug. 6, 2013). Final Act. 7. 3 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 ANALYSIS Rejection I: Jochi and Sigler Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claims 1—3, 7, 11, 15—17, and 20 as unpatentable over Jochi and Sigler, the Examiner finds that “Jochi discloses a method of forming resistance spot welds on alloy workpieces.” Final Act. 3 (citing Jochi, Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, and 11). To help illustrate the Examiner’s findings, we reproduce Figure 1 of Jochi, below: FSG.1 Figure 1 of Jochi depicts a block diagram of a power supply for resistance welding. Jochi, col. 3,11. 31—34. According to the Examiner, Jochi’s method comprises forming two or more sheets of alloy workpieces 46, 48, and pressing the weld faces with pressing unit 40. See Final Act. 3 (citing Jochi, Abstr., col. 4,11. 56—68). The Examiner further finds that Jochi’s method passes a first stage current, second stage current, and third stage current between electrodes 34, 36, citing Figures 2A and 2B. Id. at 3— 4. To illustrate these findings, we reproduce Figures 2A and 2B, below: 4 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 FIG.2A 54 { s c m #|cTom6j [ (S S T) F“8 OH % j SO WELD’S COOL WELDS HOLD I loo/M iS-Ooo| SMS SMS [oqoqj ms I heat SMS SS§S a | {CONTROL) i F1G.2B i SCH#Soj] ; (SET) F«5CH* | SQ WELD 1 COOL WE IDS s LlJlPj CIM CllAp] Clj'ij I HEAT [/MSI * ZHYM j (CONTROL) i WELDSiF-SO. OHs CVCtE^OI | W£LD2 s F«8 0. 6 H *. CYCLE^Oi HOLD l„..r.sS 54 / f i nn 5> A Jochi describes these Figures as illustrating setting screens (Jochi, col. 3,11. 35—36) that include a first weld time (WELD 1), a cooling time (COOL), and a second weld time (WELD 2), including current values (HEAT) (id. at col. 5,11. 33—45). The Examiner relies on Figures 2A and 2B for disclosing, “the third stage being longer than the second stage.” Final Act. 4. In a Advisory Action subsequent to the Final Action, the Examiner also found that Jochi’s Figures 13 A and 13B show the claimed “three cycles.” Adv. Act. 2 (dated Nov. 30, 2015). To illustrate this finding, we reproduce Figures 13A and 13B, below: 5 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 <50Hz> Jochi describes these Figures as “waveform diagrams showing the secondary AC frequency/cycle setting method of a variant of the embodiment [of Figure 14].” Jochi, col. 3,1. 65—col. 4,1. 2; see also id. at Fig. 14 (disclosing a setting screen similar to that shown in Figures 2A and 2B). According to the Examiner, the above Figures 13A and 13B show the claimed “three sequences or processes and three cycles.” Id. Appellants ’ Argument In contesting the rejection, Appellants argue, “no combination of [Jochi and Sigler] teaches or suggests the methods specified in independent claims 1 and 16 with their required three-stage current flow management. ” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). We agree. 6 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 Our Analysis The claims recite, inter alia: (1) “a first stage weld current . . . [that] heats the workpieces . . . without melting of the workpieces”; (2) “a second stage weld current... for initiating molten weld nugget formation”; and (3) “a third stage weld current ... at a third stage rms current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value.” Appeal Br. 18 (claim 1), 21 (claim 16) (Claims App.). Although Jochi’s Figure 2B appears to disclose two stages of weld current, we are not persuaded that Jochi discloses three stages of weld current, as recited in the claims. To emphasize this deficiency, we reproduce Jochi’s Figure 2B, below: FIG.2B 54 SCH#O0 1j {SET} F = :50Hz SQ WELD 1 COOL WE LD 2 [imp] L-J§Pj CIJCpJ L_j!pj HEAT (CONTROL) [loo] Zllfll WELD1:F=80 . OHz CYCLE ~Q 1 WELD2:F-60 . 6 Hz CYCLE”04 HOLD j£ Q Oj r - L., ms A We find that Figure 2B appears to disclose a first stage of weld current of 600 Amps for a duration of 20 ms, followed by a 30 ms cooling period, after which a second stage of weld current of 750 Amps for a duration of 66 ms is applied. See Jochi, col. 6,1. 62—col. 7,1. 10 (describing Fig. 2B); see also id. at col. 5,11. 34-45 (describing first and second current values and weld times of similar Fig. 2A). Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, however, we are not persuaded that this disclosure supports a 7 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 finding that a third stage weld current exists, let alone one where “the third stage [is] longer than the second stage.” Final Act. 4 (citing Jochi Figs. 2A, 2B). We also disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Jochi’s Figures 13A and 13B disclose the claimed “third stage weld current.” See Adv. Act. 2 In particular, Figures 13A and 13B are waveform diagrams of a different embodiment of Jochi’s invention, namely, the setting screen of Figure 14, which also fails to disclose a third stage weld current. See Jochi, col. 3, 1. 65—col. 4,1. 2; see also id. at Fig. 14 (disclosing only WELD 1 and WELD 2, or, at most, two stage weld currents.). Furthermore, in addressing the claimed limitation, the “first stage weld current. . . heats the workpieces . . . without melting of the workpieces,” the Examiner cites to Jochi’s disclosure at column 8, lines 1— 45. Final Act. 3. However, we find nothing in this disclosure to support a finding that Jochi’s first stage weld current heats the workpieces without melting, as recited in the claims. In particular, Jochi’s Figure 2B appears to disclose a “first stage weld current” of 600 Amps, but the record does not support a finding that this current heats the workpieces without melting the workpieces. Moreover, in addressing the claimed limitation, “passing a third stage weld current... at a third stage rms current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value,” the Examiner finds that the following description discloses this limitation: The control unit 32 then measures the hold time [HOLD] by means of the predetermined timer and thereafter ceases to issue the weld force control signal FC to the pressing unit 40 (to allow the signal FC to go low), to thereby release the workpieces W from the compression of the electrodes 34 and 36. A nugget 8 Appeal 2017-000811 Application 13/309,825 is formed at a weld portion between the workpieces W, i.e., two metallic members 46 and 48 to obtain a metallurgical joint. Jochi, col. 9,11. 45—50; Final Act. 4. We find nothing in this disclosure to support a finding that a “third stage weld current” exists, let alone one that exists “at a third stage rms current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value,” as found by the Examiner. See id. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1— 3,7, 11, 15—17, and 20 as unpatentable over Jochi and Sigler. Rejection II: Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka In rejecting dependent claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka, the Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings discussed above under Rejection I. See Final Act. 7. For the same reasons that we do not sustain Rejection I, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka. SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of claims 1—3, 7, 11, 15—17, and 20 as unpatentable over Jochi and Sigler. We reverse the rejection of claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation